Commentary: Forcing silence speaks volumes

Published 4:30 am, Friday, March 10, 2017

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Commentary: Forcing silence speaks volumes

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Last month, a riot broke out at the University of California at Berkeley.

The students were not protesting being forced into going to war, like they were 45 years ago. Instead, they were opposed to having a particular speaker on campus — Milo Yiannopoulos, the former senior editor of Breitbart News.

In the end, people were injured and property was destroyed. No one was being forced to go to Yiannopoulos’ presentation, yet protesters were determined that no one be able to hear what he had to say and make up their own minds about his message.

Last week, there was a disturbance at Middlebury College in Vermont, again about a particular speaker, libertarian conservative political scientist Charles Murray, who was invited to campus. He was shouted down, prevented from speaking and the faculty member who was escorting him was injured by the mob, receiving treatment at a hospital, where she was fitted with a neck brace.

Again, no one was required to attend Murray’s presentation. The mob wanted to silence the speaker, which they succeeded in doing.

About 40 years ago, when I was attending Illinois College, representatives of the John Birch Society gave a presentation on campus. No one seemed especially worried that the John Birchers were going to give a presentation that conflicted with the personal viewpoints of the audience. In fact, we would have been disappointed had the speech not been controversial.

I went to the speech out of curiosity. The audience was first subjected to a long, boring black-and-white film, which showed the Birch Society’s founder Robert W. Welch droning on about threats to America. The speakers then spoke and there was some discussion.

That was it.

I doubt if anyone had become radicalized by the presentation, but at least we had the chance to find out what the Birchers had to say,and we could accept, or reject, their political pitch. There were many other speakers who came to campus when I was a student whose views were unsettling. But I learned something new each time I went to one of the presentations.

I agree with the great American philosopher Charles Peirce, who claims that doubt is a required stimulus for inquiry. If Peirce is right, then it would seem the only time students will be inclined to think deeply about a topic is when they are confronted with viewpoints at odds with their own, established views, which is why silencing speakers is an actual harm to learning.

Silencing speakers on campus, no matter how odious their views may seem to be, has the negative effect of stopping open inquiry.

There is another problem that suppression of free speech raises. In fall 2015 there were demonstrations on the campus of the University of Missouri at Columbia. A faculty member, Melissa Click, was caught on video demanding that a student journalist stop videotaping the event. She was heard in the video demanding help from the mob to stop his continued recording.

In a way, she was attempting to silence him. The professor was eventually fired, but the damage was done. The tape was aired on television news and also continues to be available on social media.

Last fall, the incoming freshmen class at Mizzou was down by about 23 percent, making it necessary to close several dormitories. There are thousands of degree-granting colleges and universities in America, and no one is forced to attend any of them.

Those institutions that turn a blind eye to violence while suppressing free speech should take note: Oddly enough, word gets around.